Issue 18729: UseCases: Explanation of words “fragment” and “increment” (uml25-ftf) Source: Microsoft (Mr. Steve Cook, stcook(at)microsoft.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The semantics of UseCases uses the words “fragment” and “increment” without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 23, 2013: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Steve Cook To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" , "issues@omg.org" Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMA== Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:35:46 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.104] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(199002)(189002)(47446002)(74502001)(51856001)(54356001)(81542001)(71186001)(53806001)(17760045001)(6806003)(46102001)(50986001)(81342001)(15202345002)(512934002)(44976003)(16236675002)(59766001)(33656001)(4396001)(69226001)(79102001)(74876001)(20776003)(54316002)(56816002)(76482001)(47736001)(80022001)(63696002)(74662001)(56776001)(16406001)(66926002)(74366001)(77982001)(31966008)(49866001)(65816001)(74706001)(47976001)(55846006)(67866001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB019;H:TK5EX14HUBC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 085551F5A8 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 To: Steve Cook , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunA= Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:49:41 +0000 Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [132.166.88.105] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19820.002 x-tm-as-result: No--61.346300-0.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus From: Steve Cook To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" , "issues@omg.org" Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMA== Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:35:46 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.104] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(199002)(189002)(47446002)(74502001)(51856001)(54356001)(81542001)(71186001)(53806001)(17760045001)(6806003)(46102001)(50986001)(81342001)(15202345002)(512934002)(44976003)(16236675002)(59766001)(33656001)(4396001)(69226001)(79102001)(74876001)(20776003)(54316002)(56816002)(76482001)(47736001)(80022001)(63696002)(74662001)(56776001)(16406001)(66926002)(74366001)(77982001)(31966008)(49866001)(65816001)(74706001)(47976001)(55846006)(67866001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB019;H:TK5EX14HUBC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 085551F5A8 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus From: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" To: Steve Cook , GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" , "issues@omg.org" Subject: AW: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMAAAYChQ Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:43:26 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.147.78.31] x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean X-cloud-security-sender: marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de X-cloud-security-recipient: issues@omg.org X-cloud-security-Virusscan: CLEAN X-cloud-security-disclaimer: This E-Mail was scanned by E-Mailservice on mx-gate01-dus with ADF3F200058 X-cloud-security: scantime:.2531 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Hi all, just to augment this discussion: >Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors >of the extending UseCase. It should actually be more fine-grained than on Behavior level, but rather on Behavior element level. I know there is no such thing than Behavior element, but what I what it is necessary to say that a certain Behavior will be extended at specific location, e.g., a certain Action, Message, State etc. Regards, Marc-Florian Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013 14:36 An: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Betreff: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: Steve Cook , GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" , "issues@omg.org" Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:14:49 +0200 Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMAAA2fyw Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org I agree with these issues, except the third one. Indeed, as stated #3 would assume that #1 is resolved and that a .fragment. would mean an owned behavior. Anyway, I think there is another issue: an ExtensionPoint is defined as .a point in the behavior of a UseCase where that behavior can be extended by the behavior of some other (extending) UseCase. but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 14:36 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=14LJwSiwEEbgafwMKdbJMIpvzDs5kUWwxOx0BI16XG0=; b=Q1Kq+qtNiWSnZ9ENHXT6IBl+75iRcVzLmotjfugmLG9jRfdJrURrC0SnbmqWdi95hO Y0fMX0PPQAQgyVkMBvPOglE1p2PpAnnBuR6OHjB4QAen1lwoiT8LBf9FO022kbjk1RD6 eVY9utfBniyv3HrbYbB9zysoAfp67u2jL9NoNPHAfscukD97oWEb2ibqShY2iWiRkw9q 9DoZ9kNsD35kUzZYY5wW4r3h0QZcez3maqqSeZhQChAp88wGjrr/uvKaUJSG3ebg8s0h 4Y3wtvTrUKATJ2tqwL5wKLTbOPtVgBHynYkN7BEvV5+ONu+cLqNA/tGymZXMD9m0eWM2 3OEg== X-Received: by 10.52.90.202 with SMTP id by10mr4539533vdb.26.1369315751151; Thu, 23 May 2013 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT) Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com From: Bran Selic Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:28:30 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: YGfJi2tuX_zboT5W40JIbmjMmZE Subject: Re: About use case... To: "BERNARD, Yves" Cc: Steve Cook , GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Thankfully, now that Ed works for Ivar, I am sure he will be able to ask him for a simple explanation of all this stuff that I am sure will satisfy everybody...we are so lucky. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM, BERNARD, Yves wrote: I agree with these issues, except the third one. Indeed, as stated #3 would assume that #1 is resolved and that a .fragment. would mean an owned behavior. Anyway, I think there is another issue: an ExtensionPoint is defined as .a point in the behavior of a UseCase where that behavior can be extended by the behavior of some other (extending) UseCase. but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 14:36 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-ID: X-Attachment-Id: 7055afdd0f56751d_0.1 From: Steve Cook To: Bran Selic , "BERNARD, Yves" CC: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMAAA2fywAAE3/gAAATAAwA== Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:12:02 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.104] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(189002)(365934002)(377454002)(199002)(52314003)(24454002)(6806003)(63696002)(16406001)(54356001)(77982001)(33656001)(47446002)(512934002)(81542001)(67866001)(81342001)(44976003)(51856001)(47736001)(74502001)(15202345002)(47976001)(74706001)(31966008)(66926002)(59766001)(69226001)(56776001)(16236675002)(55846006)(20776003)(53806001)(74876001)(17760045001)(79102001)(46102001)(54316002)(80022001)(49866001)(56816002)(76482001)(74366001)(4396001)(65816001)(50986001)(74662001)(71186001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB003;H:TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 085551F5A8 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org J Replying to Yves. .but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior., the spec says this is intentional: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.. It also says that the .explanation. of the ExtensionPoint provides a way (very informal) to link the extension point to an element of the behavior. This is what it says in the notation: Note that explanation, which is optional, may be any informal text or a more precise definition of the location in the behavior of the UseCase where the extension point occurs, such as the name of a State in a StateMachine, an Activity in an activity diagram, a precondition, or a postcondition. -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 23 May 2013 14:29 To: BERNARD, Yves Cc: Steve Cook; GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: About use case... Thankfully, now that Ed works for Ivar, I am sure he will be able to ask him for a simple explanation of all this stuff that I am sure will satisfy everybody...we are so lucky. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM, BERNARD, Yves wrote: I agree with these issues, except the third one. Indeed, as stated #3 would assume that #1 is resolved and that a .fragment. would mean an owned behavior. Anyway, I think there is another issue: an ExtensionPoint is defined as .a point in the behavior of a UseCase where that behavior can be extended by the behavior of some other (extending) UseCase. but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 14:36 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: Steve Cook , Bran Selic CC: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:37:50 +0200 Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMAAA2fywAAE3/gAAATAAwAAipCyQ Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Steve, Albeit there is actually the text you quoted in the notation section, there is no such .explanation. property in the definition of the ExtensionPoint metaclass. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 16:12 To: Bran Selic; BERNARD, Yves Cc: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... J Replying to Yves. .but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior., the spec says this is intentional: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.. It also says that the .explanation. of the ExtensionPoint provides a way (very informal) to link the extension point to an element of the behavior. This is what it says in the notation: Note that explanation, which is optional, may be any informal text or a more precise definition of the location in the behavior of the UseCase where the extension point occurs, such as the name of a State in a StateMachine, an Activity in an activity diagram, a precondition, or a postcondition. -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 23 May 2013 14:29 To: BERNARD, Yves Cc: Steve Cook; GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: About use case... Thankfully, now that Ed works for Ivar, I am sure he will be able to ask him for a simple explanation of all this stuff that I am sure will satisfy everybody...we are so lucky. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM, BERNARD, Yves wrote: I agree with these issues, except the third one. Indeed, as stated #3 would assume that #1 is resolved and that a .fragment. would mean an owned behavior. Anyway, I think there is another issue: an ExtensionPoint is defined as .a point in the behavior of a UseCase where that behavior can be extended by the behavior of some other (extending) UseCase. but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 14:36 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: "Chonoles, Michael J" , "Steve.Cook@microsoft.com" , Bran Selic CC: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:43:54 +0200 Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: AQHOV7+VEPJ3vXFOjE+Erom9JFD0xpkS8+NAgADwuKA= Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Michael, I see the point. However, it means that, as specified today, one cannot practically use an extension point without stereotyping it. See my reply to Steve: I believe that at least one property (even limited to an informal string) is missing. Yves From: Chonoles, Michael J [mailto:michael.j.chonoles@lmco.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 18:29 To: Steve.Cook@microsoft.com; Bran Selic; BERNARD, Yves Cc: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... I do remember that this is intentional. The behavior of a use case is often captured in 1) Pure Text 2) Graphical Storyboards 3) Activity Diagrams 4) Sequence Diagrams (or fragments) 5) State Machines Forcing an extension point to be formally compatible with all the above was thought to be difficult; forcing it to be compatible with only one of the above was thought to be methodology and limiting. This rational probably explains the issues 1, 2, and 4 below and likely will prevent us from making SĂ©stien and other authors satisfied. Michael From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:12 AM To: Bran Selic; BERNARD, Yves Cc: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: About use case... J Replying to Yves. .but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior., the spec says this is intentional: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.. It also says that the .explanation. of the ExtensionPoint provides a way (very informal) to link the extension point to an element of the behavior. This is what it says in the notation: Note that explanation, which is optional, may be any informal text or a more precise definition of the location in the behavior of the UseCase where the extension point occurs, such as the name of a State in a StateMachine, an Activity in an activity diagram, a precondition, or a postcondition. -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 23 May 2013 14:29 To: BERNARD, Yves Cc: Steve Cook; GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: About use case... Thankfully, now that Ed works for Ivar, I am sure he will be able to ask him for a simple explanation of all this stuff that I am sure will satisfy everybody...we are so lucky. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM, BERNARD, Yves wrote: I agree with these issues, except the third one. Indeed, as stated #3 would assume that #1 is resolved and that a .fragment. would mean an owned behavior. Anyway, I think there is another issue: an ExtensionPoint is defined as .a point in the behavior of a UseCase where that behavior can be extended by the behavior of some other (extending) UseCase. but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 14:36 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. From: Steve Cook To: "BERNARD, Yves" , Bran Selic CC: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMAAA2fywAAE3/gAAATAAwAAipCyQAAUGj1A= Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:58:56 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.103] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(24454002)(52314003)(189002)(377454002)(365934002)(199002)(33656001)(81542001)(74662001)(74366001)(512934002)(81342001)(50986001)(74502001)(56776001)(76482001)(31966008)(71186001)(20776003)(63696002)(55846006)(47736001)(46102001)(47446002)(56816002)(47976001)(4396001)(6806003)(16406001)(77982001)(53806001)(74876001)(15202345002)(54356001)(17760045001)(49866001)(67866001)(54316002)(16236675002)(51856001)(65816001)(66926002)(59766001)(69226001)(79102001)(80022001)(74706001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BN1AFFO11HUB028;H:TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 085634EFF4 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Please see my issue 4. From: BERNARD, Yves [mailto:Yves.Bernard@airbus.com] Sent: 24 May 2013 07:38 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Steve, Albeit there is actually the text you quoted in the notation section, there is no such .explanation. property in the definition of the ExtensionPoint metaclass. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 16:12 To: Bran Selic; BERNARD, Yves Cc: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... J Replying to Yves. .but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior., the spec says this is intentional: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.. It also says that the .explanation. of the ExtensionPoint provides a way (very informal) to link the extension point to an element of the behavior. This is what it says in the notation: Note that explanation, which is optional, may be any informal text or a more precise definition of the location in the behavior of the UseCase where the extension point occurs, such as the name of a State in a StateMachine, an Activity in an activity diagram, a precondition, or a postcondition. -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 23 May 2013 14:29 To: BERNARD, Yves Cc: Steve Cook; GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: About use case... Thankfully, now that Ed works for Ivar, I am sure he will be able to ask him for a simple explanation of all this stuff that I am sure will satisfy everybody...we are so lucky. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM, BERNARD, Yves wrote: I agree with these issues, except the third one. Indeed, as stated #3 would assume that #1 is resolved and that a .fragment. would mean an owned behavior. Anyway, I think there is another issue: an ExtensionPoint is defined as .a point in the behavior of a UseCase where that behavior can be extended by the behavior of some other (extending) UseCase. but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 14:36 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: Steve Cook , Bran Selic CC: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:32:10 +0200 Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMAAA2fywAAE3/gAAATAAwAAipCyQAAUGj1AACYzyoA== Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Ok. Sorry. From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: vendredi 24 mai 2013 10:59 To: BERNARD, Yves; Bran Selic Cc: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Please see my issue 4. From: BERNARD, Yves [mailto:Yves.Bernard@airbus.com] Sent: 24 May 2013 07:38 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Steve, Albeit there is actually the text you quoted in the notation section, there is no such .explanation. property in the definition of the ExtensionPoint metaclass. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 16:12 To: Bran Selic; BERNARD, Yves Cc: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... J Replying to Yves. .but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior., the spec says this is intentional: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.. It also says that the .explanation. of the ExtensionPoint provides a way (very informal) to link the extension point to an element of the behavior. This is what it says in the notation: Note that explanation, which is optional, may be any informal text or a more precise definition of the location in the behavior of the UseCase where the extension point occurs, such as the name of a State in a StateMachine, an Activity in an activity diagram, a precondition, or a postcondition. -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 23 May 2013 14:29 To: BERNARD, Yves Cc: Steve Cook; GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: About use case... Thankfully, now that Ed works for Ivar, I am sure he will be able to ask him for a simple explanation of all this stuff that I am sure will satisfy everybody...we are so lucky. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM, BERNARD, Yves wrote: I agree with these issues, except the third one. Indeed, as stated #3 would assume that #1 is resolved and that a .fragment. would mean an owned behavior. Anyway, I think there is another issue: an ExtensionPoint is defined as .a point in the behavior of a UseCase where that behavior can be extended by the behavior of some other (extending) UseCase. but there is no way to link this extension point to any element of a behavior. Yves From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 14:36 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. From: Axel Scheithauer To: Steve Cook , GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" , "issues@omg.org" Subject: AW: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMAAvhxpA Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:33:09 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.0.14] X-XWALL-BCKS: auto X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org The whole extension part is intentionally left sketchy, and in my opinion it can stay like that (except for issue 2). Maybe a clarification could be added, that the terms have no connection to the meta model. As for the explanation missing in the meta model, I think it is sufficient to use an owned comment for that. It is a textual description without defined semantics, exactly what a comment is. If some day we want to enhance this part, incorporating aspect oriented terminology would be the route to go (imho) (see .Aspect oriented Software Development with Use Cases. by Ivar). -- Axel Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013 14:36 An: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Betreff: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: Axel Scheithauer , Steve Cook , GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" , "issues@omg.org" Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:41:57 +0200 Subject: RE: About use case... Thread-Topic: About use case... Thread-Index: Ac5Xnq9IyqqUFuq/TXKnTwaEMXNKHwAB4LUgAAFUunAAAWdHMAAvhxpAAAUYiPA= Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Axel, The point is that since the .explanation. would be a comment that has a specific purpose (i.e. has a specific *role*) we need a means to distinguish if for any other comments that a use case might own. This could be a specific association to Comment but I think a simple String would be .lighter. and good enough. Yves From: Axel Scheithauer [mailto:Axel.Scheithauer@oose.de] Sent: vendredi 24 mai 2013 15:33 To: Steve Cook; GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Subject: AW: About use case... The whole extension part is intentionally left sketchy, and in my opinion it can stay like that (except for issue 2). Maybe a clarification could be added, that the terms have no connection to the meta model. As for the explanation missing in the meta model, I think it is sufficient to use an owned comment for that. It is a textual description without defined semantics, exactly what a comment is. If some day we want to enhance this part, incorporating aspect oriented terminology would be the route to go (imho) (see .Aspect oriented Software Development with Use Cases. by Ivar). -- Axel Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013 14:36 An: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Betreff: RE: About use case... Actually I think there are four issues, which we might choose to address separately. Copying issues@omg.org. 1. The semantics of UseCases uses the words .fragment. and .increment. without explaining what these words mean in terms of the metamodel. 2. In the sentence .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached., .extending. should read .extended.. 3. Although the textual semantics asserts that it can . .individual fragments. and other references - there is no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. 4. The notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 12:50 To: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: About use case... Fully agree, it was also what I though. Do I ask Juergen to log an issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] EnvoyĂ© jeudi 23 mai 2013 13:48 Ă€: GERARD Sebastien 166342; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: About use case... SĂ©stien I think the words .fragment. and .increment. are supposed to refer to the ownedBehaviors of the UseCase. What I do not understand is how the mechanism described by .The individual fragments are executed as the corresponding ExtensionPoints of the extending UseCase are reached. can possibly work. Firstly, it should read .extended UseCase.. Then, I suppose from a user.s point of view there could be explanations or dependencies attached to the extension points that describe which behaviours they refer to, and explain what .reached. might mean. This is supported by the following text: .The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is defined is intentionally unspecified.... Even given that, all that the metamodel supports is extension at the granularity of complete UseCases. There is absolutely no way for an Extend to pick out individual ownedBehaviors of the extending UseCase. I also think there is a basic problem with the metamodel: the notation for ExtensionPoint provides for an .explanation., but the metamodel provides nowhere to store it. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 23 May 2013 11:19 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: About use case... Hi, In the use case clause, a concept of fragement is introduced related to use case, as for example in the following sentence: .If the condition of the Extend is true at the time the first ExtensionPoint is reached during the execution of the extended UseCase, then all of the appropriate behavior fragments of the extending UseCase will also be executed.. I am no really sure to understand what it is exactly? What is a fragment in case as for example is denoted with a statemachine? Is it a transition? Thanks for clarification. Best. SĂ©stien. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SĂ©stien GĂ©rd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.IngĂ©erie dirigĂ©par les modès pour les Systès EmbarquĂ©(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free.